Lateral Thinking
This blog has been focused on games lately, so I decided to bring some abstract thought to the table. Last night I was watching Bloomberg and I don't know who the interviewer was but he had Edward de Bono on the show. I had never heard of him. I have heard the term lateral thinking before but I did not know that it was a rather modern term and I certainly did not know that he invented the term. He was talking about the topic of thinking (a topic of some importance to me as an ambitious chess player) and he suggests that thinking should be taught as a subject in school. He stated that American society is too focused on memorization and that we are not taught how to think. Also we rely too much on information without really looking at different ways to interpret information. Stumbling upon this interview gave me a lot to think about last night.
Lateral thinking simply suggests that we approach situations with an open mind, from different perspectives. This is something extremely important at the chess board. De Bono says that we are too focused on critical thinking and problem solving, which is only a small part of thinking. This method has served us well since the Renaissance Era however it has limited us by teaching us complacency. When a situation appears good, we are unable to apply our normal technique of thinking to the situation because there is no unique solution. There is no clear path forward. If you have been following this blog, you know that I can draw parallels between pretty much anything and chess. Here I was instantly drawn to a wide range of positions where I feel comfortable but I do not know how to progress. How to make a good situation better. He talks about the fact that we are so concerned with problems: global warming, recession, etc., but that we do not address these in the right way. We do not necessarily need to solve these 'problems', we need to find and execute good ideas. We need to create new approaches.
Here's a quote from last night: "In a Tennis tournament there is one winner. There is one final game, two semi-final games, four quarter-final games, and so on. If there are 67 participants, how many games does it take to produce a winner?"
He gives this example in numerous seminars all over the place and then he waits a few seconds maybe answering peripheral questions and then in less time than it took you to read this sentence he says: "You should have the answer by now."
Wait for it...
No one ever has the answer. The answer is 66 games. There is one winner, so 66 losers. One loss eliminates you from the tournament: 66 games. "You just have to change your starting point."
I could not help thinking how much time I have wasted trying to make a combination work when all I had to do was change the first move. And still coming up with the wrong answer just because I was trying to force a solution. I really don't spend enough time employing this method of thought at the board.
Another central tenet of his method of thought, which by the way is legally required to be learned in school in many countries (such as Venezuela), is the notion of provocative operation. This is something that I do employ quite frequently. I like looking at all (reasonable) material exchanges available in a position. It opens me up to some of the less obvious maneuvers that are present in the position. My mistake however, is ruling some out too soon. Chopping off lines as if I were a computer trying to solve the position by brute force. It seems to me perhaps looking at a completely lost position for a little bit may be useful. Not trying to justify an unsound sacrifice, but rather allowing ideas to come out of this sacrifice that may be good in other lines. Nuances of the position that would otherwise remain hidden.
At many points in a game the path is not clear. Problems cannot be removed or directly addressed and play must continue in spite of these problems. In these situations it is necessary to open up to all the ideas in the position and then find a path that makes the most sense. Sometimes unconventional solutions are actually the best approach to a position, anyone who is familiar with the works of John Watson on Chess Strategy should be quite aware of this. Lateral thinking may be the best way to find these unconventional solutions.
Lateral thinking simply suggests that we approach situations with an open mind, from different perspectives. This is something extremely important at the chess board. De Bono says that we are too focused on critical thinking and problem solving, which is only a small part of thinking. This method has served us well since the Renaissance Era however it has limited us by teaching us complacency. When a situation appears good, we are unable to apply our normal technique of thinking to the situation because there is no unique solution. There is no clear path forward. If you have been following this blog, you know that I can draw parallels between pretty much anything and chess. Here I was instantly drawn to a wide range of positions where I feel comfortable but I do not know how to progress. How to make a good situation better. He talks about the fact that we are so concerned with problems: global warming, recession, etc., but that we do not address these in the right way. We do not necessarily need to solve these 'problems', we need to find and execute good ideas. We need to create new approaches.
Here's a quote from last night: "In a Tennis tournament there is one winner. There is one final game, two semi-final games, four quarter-final games, and so on. If there are 67 participants, how many games does it take to produce a winner?"
He gives this example in numerous seminars all over the place and then he waits a few seconds maybe answering peripheral questions and then in less time than it took you to read this sentence he says: "You should have the answer by now."
Wait for it...
No one ever has the answer. The answer is 66 games. There is one winner, so 66 losers. One loss eliminates you from the tournament: 66 games. "You just have to change your starting point."
I could not help thinking how much time I have wasted trying to make a combination work when all I had to do was change the first move. And still coming up with the wrong answer just because I was trying to force a solution. I really don't spend enough time employing this method of thought at the board.
Another central tenet of his method of thought, which by the way is legally required to be learned in school in many countries (such as Venezuela), is the notion of provocative operation. This is something that I do employ quite frequently. I like looking at all (reasonable) material exchanges available in a position. It opens me up to some of the less obvious maneuvers that are present in the position. My mistake however, is ruling some out too soon. Chopping off lines as if I were a computer trying to solve the position by brute force. It seems to me perhaps looking at a completely lost position for a little bit may be useful. Not trying to justify an unsound sacrifice, but rather allowing ideas to come out of this sacrifice that may be good in other lines. Nuances of the position that would otherwise remain hidden.
At many points in a game the path is not clear. Problems cannot be removed or directly addressed and play must continue in spite of these problems. In these situations it is necessary to open up to all the ideas in the position and then find a path that makes the most sense. Sometimes unconventional solutions are actually the best approach to a position, anyone who is familiar with the works of John Watson on Chess Strategy should be quite aware of this. Lateral thinking may be the best way to find these unconventional solutions.
Nice post!
i agree with you that the problem with chess is that sometimes it "locks" us into a specific train of thought that we're unable to shake out from.
add to that, given time controls as tight as they are, it becomes highly pressurising and increasingly difficult to think "out of the box" in actual tournament conditions.
chess after all, is a game based on certain fixed principles, strategies and ideas. these ideas, tactics and strategies are borne not out of necessity but are acquired through trial and error and an attempt to make sense of the myriad of possible chess positions.
when we see a combination or tactic, we recognise it not because we are thinking laterally but because we have came across this in our studies and have memorised the patterns associated with the tactic/strategy.
it is wise to remember that lateral thinking is just as important in chess.
thank you for the valuable reminder.
cheers.
It would be great if we could see the position afresh after minutes of calculations. Perhaps we should think of hippos being dragged out of the swamp when we are stuck. 8)
Nice to hear of your Reno success.
chessaholic - i think the two terms are similar, although i'm sure de bono would be able to tell you why his philosophy is unique. i think maybe 'thinking out of the box' is against conventional wisdom while lateral thinking is more on an individual basis against your normal mode of doing things.
takchess - he still seems to get a certain degree of respect. he was on a list with bill gates as the 20 most influential people in the world today so he is certainly recognized. hippos dragged out of a swamp?? thanks.